Eric Peters Automobiles - Motor Mouthhttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/
enSun, 15 Sep 2019 10:17:38 GMTvBulletin60https://ericpetersautos.com/forum/images/misc/rss.pngEric Peters Automobiles - Motor Mouthhttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/
The Off Road End Run!https://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20793-The-Off-Road-End-Run!&goto=newpost
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:41:49 GMTSpeed does kill - if you get caught doing it.
We live in the Hut! Hut! Hut! era. Armed government workers (AGWs) wearing Batman-style utility belts...Speed does kill - if you get caught doing it.
We live in the Hut! Hut! Hut! era. Armed government workers (AGWs) wearing Batman-style utility belts packed with multiple mags and high-powered "assault" weapons over their Robocop body armor are far more likely to end your life than doing 70 in a 55.
Every encounter with them is a threat to our safety.
Even if you aren’t Tazed and dragged out of your car by one of these odd juxtapositions of muscled-up and tattoo'd poltroonery (I feared for my safety!) and hair-trigger brutality (stop resisting!) most people just can’t afford to “speed” anymore.
The extortion note - styled a "ticket" - the AGW forces you to sign at gunpoint (see what happens if you decline to sign) is just the beginning. The Oz Panopticon will take note the moment you’re duly convicted and then comes the second extortion note - this one from the insurance mafia. The already-absurdly expensive “coverage” you’re forced to buy, also at gunpoint (see what happens if you stop paying) suddenly costs 20 percent more . . . for the next five years.
That's for something like 48 in a 35 - i.e., driving with the flow of traffic - but today it's your turn to be the one picked from the herd for a shearing. If you're driving a car that looks speedy, the odds of this happening to you today - and tomorrow - go up.
If you get caught actually using a speedy car - laying rubber, driving faster than 80 on the highway (something an '86 Yugo could do) you risk a "reckless" driving bust and thousands of dollars in legalized theft, plus the very real possibility of being Hut! Hut! Hutted! by an armed government worker.
Even if you always drive the speed limit and never get Hut! Hut! Hutted! the insurance mafia will make your speedy (in theory) car a very expensive car to own, which will make you not want to drive it. Which in turn renders pointless the buying of it. You pay more to go no faster than the herd - plus the higher gas bills and cramped back seats.
It's as silly as paying ribeye prices for oatmeal.
This probably explains the declining interest in speedy cars - and the much-increased-interest in 4x4 trucks and SUVs. There are no speed traps off-road and you’re much less likely to encounter a Hut! Hut! Hutting! AGW on your favorite trail. These are usually abundant as well as free - in contrast to track time for a speedy car. Track days are a rich man's hobby - and a hassle. Drive there, pay there - then drive back. Often, the drive there is hours long.
But you can turn off the paved road pretty much anywhere. If you have land - or a friend who has land - you can go there, too. There is a great deal of appeal in this. What's down that dirt road?
Let's see!
You can also enjoy a visually obstreperous vehicle - one that makes the right sounds and provides the emotional gratification that speedy cars used to but can’t anymore because of the anvil-over-your-head constant threat of crossing paths with a bullet-headed (and possibly bullet-spewing) AGW.
Insurance is less oppressive, too - because trucks and SUVs haven't yet been targeted as an anti-social class of vehicle as speedy cars have been for generations. You can buy a pick-up with a V8 and it's just a pickup. A V8 Camaro or Mustang is a "high risk" car and your rates will reflect this, accordingly.
The trucks also have V8s - not just turbo'd fours that are too complicated (and expensive) to modify. The V8s in most new trucks are still pretty straightforward. Most are amendable to the same kinds of mods people used to make to speedy car V8s. And of course, they're V8s.
An interesting thing: Observe the proliferation of specialty off-road packages, mirroring what was once practice with speedy cars.
Instead of Z28, Z71 - Chevy speak for the heavy-duty suspension, skid plates and M/S-rated tires offered with trucks like the Silverado 1500.
Ford offers the twin-turbo Raptor - its response to the Z71 and even hairier. The Hut! Hut! Hut! era’s equivalent of a Boss 429 Mustang.
Ram is about to install the Challenger Hellcat’s almost 800 horsepower supercharged Hemi V8 in its 1500 truck as a counterpoint to the two above - and you can already buy the Hellcat’s engine in a Jeep Grand Cherokee (the Trackhawk) and use it because to an AGW it looks like a Jeep Grand Cherokee and thus doesn’t trigger his instinct to Hut! Hut! Hut!
In the event it does trigger him, it’s feasible to escape the Hut! Hut! Hutting! because the Jeep has 4WD and can leave the road - and hopefully, the steroid-enraged AGW - fuming at the road’s edge.
The market is like water in that it always finds a way to "leak" past whatever is trying to hold it back. See Prohibition. See the War on (some) Drugs. See the War )not officially declared) on cars.
It may not be possible to do much with a speedy car other than admire it for what it could do.
But that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to have just as much fun - without risking the mulcting or the Hut! Hut! Hutting!
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!If you like what you've found here please consider supporting EPautos. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Our donate button is here. If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker - and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price - free! Click here.

]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20793-The-Off-Road-End-Run!https://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20792-VW-amp-Victory-Gin&goto=newpost
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:54:13 GMTIn the final pages of Orwell’s 1984, we find Winston Smith - the novel's main character - drinking Victory Gin at the Chestnut Tree Cafe. He’s been released by the Party after years of torture for Thought Crime but rather than hate the Party for what it did to him, Winston has come to love Big Brother.
VW, too.
After $30 billion and counting in fines and buybacks for “cheating” on government emissions certification tests, the manufacturer of people’s cars has committed to building nothing but high-dollar/short range/long-recharge-time electric cars, commencing with the ID3, a Golf-sized five-door hatchback electric car just unveiled in Germany ahead of the Frankfurt Auto Show.
Next will come the IDCruzz - an electric crossover SUV with a 110 MPH top speed (just slightly faster than a '74 Super Beetle) and a range of 202 miles (less than the range of a '74 Super Beetle).
For three or four times what a '74 Super Beetle cost.
The People's Car becomes the Politically Correct Car. And the Elitist Car - since most people won't be able to afford one.
VW is trying to put a Happy Face on it all.
CEO Herbert Diess says the ID3 is “the world’s first carbon neutral car,” meaning it doesn’t generate any carbon dioxide at the tailpipe, because it hasn’t got one. True enough. This is what makes it a politically correct car - because in the lunatic world of "climate change," it's only tailpipe "emissions" of C02 that are cause for "concern." Those "emitted" at the smokestack are don't-worry-about-that (well, for now).
The ID3 and its electrically-propelled PC VWs also atones for those awful “cheating” diesels that emitted “up to 40 times” the allowable fraction of a fraction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) under certain operating conditions. This was portrayed as almost a war crime, notwithstanding the absence of a single actual victim harmed by the “up to 40 times” higher NOx emissions and notwithstanding that a home gas range “emits” more NOx than several “cheating” VWs.
A top-drawer investigative report by DW, a German team exposed all of this - but never mind.
No, never look. It's been memory holed by You Tube.
Electric cars are The Future - even if they take us backward.
Consider this ID3 - which will come standard with a 45 kilowatt-hour battery pack and a best-case range of 205 miles, which is about half the actual range of the current, non-electric Golf. The ID3 will, according to Diess, offer more range - as much as 341 miles - almost as much as the non-electric Golf. But for much more money.
Decent range used to come free - or at least, standard.
Paying etra for range is like being charged extra for the cup the soda comes in.
Imagine the ululations if Toyota sold a 200 mile Corolla - and demanded a couple thousand extra for one that could make it to 300.
VW didn’t say anything specific about pricing during Monday’s reveal but it’s likely the ID3 will sticker for about as much as VW’s only currently available electric car, the eGolf - which stickers for about $10k more than the same car without the battery and with three times the range, standard.
So much for fahrvergnugen.
VW’s new slogan - “happiness is a renewable resource” - will take some time to get used to.
Literally.
Like all electric cars, the ID3 is not just limited in range; it also imposes limits on your time. While a non-electric car can be refueled to full in just a few minutes, almost anywhere, it takes an EV at least 30-45 minutes of plugging in to a “fast” charger - how’s that for Orwellian? - to recover 80 percent of its already much-shorter-to-begin-with range. (The partial charge thing is a safety precaution - to limit the chance the battery will overheat and the car burn down to a cinder.)
And that 30-45 minute "fast" charge only happens if you can find that "fast" charger before you run out of juice. If not, you'll be waiting hours to recharge.
One more thing.
The optional (pay extra) 341 mile range ID3 would only have about 272 miles of range after 80 percent “fast” charging; the base version with 205 miles to start with would be gimped down to 164.
If you don't drive too fast.
If you don't use the AC (or heat) too much.
It’s important to place an asterisk by the touted range of all EVs - because the range of all EVs is greatly affected by extremes of temperature and use of accessories such as the AC and heat, all of them powered by the same batteries that power the car.
Use them more, you go less far.
During a cold snap last winter, many EV owners discovered the range of their cars had fallen by 40-50 percent. EVs may not be gas hogs - but they are energy (and time) hogs.
They’re something else, too:
Disposable cars.
EVs don’t last as long as non-electric cars because of the shorter lifespan of their batteries, which are the most expensive part of the EV.
Just like the 12 volt starter battery in your current car, an EV battery pack loses its capacity to accept and retain a charge over time. But an EV’s battery pack costs thousands - not $100 or so. Replacing the EV’s battery pack is very much the same thing, in economic terms, as replacing the engine in an IC car with the difference being that most IC engines will run for at least 12-15 years before anything goes seriously wrong with them while EV battery packs have a useful service life of about eight years.
By that time, the EV itself will have lost half its original value - and only a fool would spend half its or more of its remaining value on a new battery to keep it going another eight years, maybe.
Diess told the press assembled for the ID3’s debut that VW will guarantee the car’s battery pack for eight years or 100,000 miles. This is a necessary guarantee, because without a functioning battery pack, an EV is several thousand pounds of paperweight. But even with the replacement guarantee, the EV’s useful life will almost certainly be shorter than than the life of an IC car.
One wonders how this affects the “carbon neutral” math.
If it’s necessary to build two EVs to provide the useful service life of one IC car, the “carbon footprint” of two EVs is probably Sasquatchian in contrast.
But VW will be politically clean - and that seems to be all that really matters these days.
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!If you like what you've found here please consider supporting EPautos. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Our donate button is here. If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker - and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price - free! Click here.

]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20792-VW-amp-Victory-GinCleaning up...https://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20790-Cleaning-up&goto=newpost
Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:37:53 GMTOne thing you can still do yourself is wash your car.
And just as you used to be able to save a lot of money by working on your car, it’s possible...One thing you can still do yourself is wash your car.
And just as you used to be able to save a lot of money by working on your car, it’s possible to save money - and more than you might think - by cleaning your car yourself.
It typically costs about $12 to run through a basic automated car wash; if you opt for the wheel/tire cleaner and a spritz of wax - which isn’t worth much - the tab can sail to $20 or more.
That’s a couple hundred bucks a year - assuming you like to keep your car clean. Which you should, for self-interested reasons (more coming).
You can keep your car clean yourself - better - a dozen times for the price of one full-service car wash. A jug of high-quality car wash soap, some wheel/tire cleaner (and a brush, to scrub the tires) shouldn't cost you more than about $20 - less if you watch for sales. You probably already have a bucket and a soft cloth, such as an old bathroom hand towel you can use for free.
Keeping your car looking good will also help keep its value looking good - which will save you big money by not losing it. A tired-looking car with blotchy paint, glaucomic headlights and permanently stained wheels won’t sell or trade for as much as one that still looks great.
You could, of course, have it professionally detailed prior to trade-in or sale, but that will cost you a lot more than $20. A detailing job usually costs $75-$100 or more.
And if you let it go too long, even a professional detailer can only do so much. It's analogous to not working out until you're 50 and then expecting a trainer to give you six pack abs in a weekend.
Keeping your car clean can also keep it from rusting - which can cost you a fortune in repair costs as well as kill its resale/trade-in value. Cars that aren’t kept clean tend to rust faster because moisture - which accelerates rust - doesn’t drain or dry out as well or as quickly (and maybe not at all) when drainage holes are blocked by accumulated dirt.
Also, it’s easy to overlook minor paint scratches when a car is dirty.
It’s important to not overlook them because paint is like skin; the purpose isn’t just to look pretty - it’s to protect what’s underneath. If the pain chips and the metal underneath is exposed to air and moisture, it will begin to rust. And once it begins to rust, it’s hard to stop the rust.
And not easy - or cheap - to fix. You can't buff out rust.
But it’s more than just a matter of aesthetics. Or saving money. Or even time savings (and sometimes, the line at the automated car wash is so long you could have washed your car yourself faster - and never had to drive anywhere to do it, either).
It's good exercise - and it's a pleasant way to spend some time with your car. It might even get you interested in trying to work on it!Some car wish Do's - and Don'ts: Never spray water on a hot car or in direct sunlight -
This risks damaging the paint - in particular, the translucent clearcoat that gives a modern car's finish its shine. If you damage the clearcoat, the paint will never shine again, no matter how much you buff it out.
This is maybe the best reason to never let high school kids trying to raise money wash your car. They usually have these fundraising car washes on hot summer days in a parking lot where there's no shade. If you want to support the kids, give them some money - but keep them away from your car.Use lots of water and keep the car wet -
Don't wipe/scrub anything until you've thoroughly hit it with lots of water, to remove the dirt (grit) which will act like sandpaper if you rub it into the finish while you're washing the car. Do this with the finish cold (per above) and in the shade so the water won't immediately evaporate and will have time to soak into the dirt; your object is to use water pressure to wash away most of the accumulated grit before you go at it with elbow grease and your wash cloth (use soft/clean towels, obviously) or sponge.
Use the hose to clean the washcloth sponge off often - and make sure the soapy water in your bucket isn't dirty water. Change if necessary.
Wash from the roof down.
Do the wheels first - so that water doesn't have a chance to dry on the finish while you're working on the wheels.
Use a fresh/clean towel to wipe down the car once you're finished washing. Be sure to avoid letting the water evap-dry on the finish. Then - in the shade - use a spray detailer to get at any bug splotches, etc. that didn't come off in the wash.
Yellowing plastic headlight lenses can be brought back to non-glaucomic using buffing compound and and old rag.
And don't forget to vacuum the interior!
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!If you like what you've found here please consider supporting EPautos. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Our donate button is here. If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker - and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price - free! Click here.

]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20790-Cleaning-upArrivederci Autopsyhttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20788-Arrivederci-Autopsy&goto=newpost
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 12:37:38 GMTThe truth gets out every now and then - not that many are paying attention. And the truth behind Fiat’s slow-motion exit-stage-left...The truth gets out every now and then - not that many are paying attention. And the truth behind Fiat’s slow-motion exit-stage-left from the North American car market is that Americans just aren’t very interested in “efficient” small cars.
If they were very interested, as the government (and media) constantly claims that they are, then available efficient small cars like the 500 three-door hatchback would be selling well.
They're available; anyone who want one is free to buy one.
Instead, they hardly sell at all. Fiat had counted on 50,000 sales annually - on the assumption that Americans hungered for efficient small cars denied them by the evil entente of Big Oil and the Big Three, which forced them to buy "gas hogs" they really didn't want.
That, at any rate, was the government's line. Still is the government's lie.
The facts speak for themselves. Given the choice, most Americans don't want the kinds of cars the government insists they're pining for.
Last year, only 5,370 Fiat 500s were sold nationwide.
Ford sells more F-150 pick ups in a week.
Thus, the news that Fiat will cease trying to sell what few Americans actually want.
The 500 slides off the radar after the end of this model year and probably soon thereafter, Fiat itself since its remaining models - the 500L and 500X - are also small-sized slow-sellers that never sold as well as the 500 hatchback.
Fiat's overall sales are down almost 40 percent.
But it’s not just Fiat doing the Randy Watson microphone drop.
BMW is having the same tough time selling the same thing Fiat’s been having trouble selling. The German luxury car maker owns Mini - and they’re not selling well, either. Notably, the three-door Mini hatchback - which is a car very similar in layout and specifications to the ill-starred 500 from Fiat. It gets even better gas mileage - but so far this year, BMW has only sold about twice as many Minis per month as Fiat has 500s.
Which isn’t many.
On average, about 650 per month.
You could combine the number of Minis and 500s sold all year so far and Ford would still have sold more F-150s in a week.
Ford sells something like 60,000 F-trucks every month.
If gas mileage sells, why isn’t it selling?
This includes the 50-something MPG Toyota Prius hybrid. Only about 1,500 of them per month have found homes so far this year - a rounding error relative to the cars that do sell.
Which don't get 50 MPG.
For example, the Dodge Charger - literally the last of the proverbial V8 Interceptors. Sales of this ancient car - the last major update was 10 years ago - are up to more than 9,000 a month, which is equivalent to the total number of Mini three-doors BMW sold during all of 2018 - despite the fact that a V8 Charger uses at least twice as much gas a hybrid Prius.
Which would you rather drive?
Most Americans agree.
The problem is the government disagrees. Not because there's an "energy crisis" but because the government is determined to impose energy austerity.
Hence the fatwa insisting that all new cars average close to 50 MPG by 2025 - in spite of the obvious fact that most people don't want a car that averages 50 MPG or even 35 MPG because there is plenty of energy, and it's inexpensive.
Not if it means driving something very small, at least.
Which is what it will require since it takes energy to move weight and the most practical way to decrease energy consumption is to make a vehicle smaller and so, lighter.
Which brings up an interesting side point. Small cars like the 500 and Mini hardtop are preposterously heavy cars for their size: 2,505 lbs. for the 500 and 2,625 lbs. for the Mini. That's about 800 pounds more than a '70s-era economy subcompact car weighed - which is why those cars often delivered better mileage than today's small (but heavy) cars do.
And they're heavy because the government insists on that, too. By fatwa'ing that even small cars make it through crash-testing regimes that would challenge the sturdiness of a '72 Sedan deViille.
If the car industry could legally build 1,700 lb. cars, they'd probably get 50 MPG instead of 30-something MPG.
People might even buy them then - because a small car that got 20 MPG more than a current small car might actually compensate for the smallness.
Of course, the saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafetyfatwas aren't going to be relaxed, either. Which means the car companies will have to figure out a way to get big cars and trucks - the models that sell - to 50 MPG without making them small.
That will be a neat trick. Right up there with "free" college for all.
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!If you like what you've found here please consider supporting EPautos. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Our donate button is here. If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker - and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price - free! Click here.

]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20788-Arrivederci-Autopsyhttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20787-You-re-in-Good-Hands-With-Elon&goto=newpost
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 12:34:05 GMTImagine if your insurance company knew about it immediately every time you drove faster than any speed limit, anywhere. That you failed to come to a...Imagine if your insurance company knew about it immediately every time you drove faster than any speed limit, anywhere. That you failed to come to a complete dead stop at every stop sign before proceeding - regardless of the need to come to a complete dead stop.
Every instance of seatbelt scofflawism.
That you drove eight hours straight to visit friends in another state; that last Thursday, you “accelerated aggressively” while trying to merge with traffic. That you turned off the traction control the other day - and squealed the tires.
And here comes the bill, custom-tailored just for you.
This is what Elon Musk has in mind next. The King of Mandated Business is getting into the insurance business - a logical thing since car insurance is the original mandated business that set the precedent for the rest of them. It’s an even better business than the electric car business because everyone has to buy car insurance, if they own a car - even if it’s not an electric car.
But Elon’s got a a new take on the business. Or rather, a new way to take.
He wants to base premiums not on your record - of accidents and claims - but on data about your driving, mined in real-time as you drive. Which, just by happy coincidence, his cars are fully equipped to provide.
Already do provide.
“The data is there,” smacked the lips of Matthew Edmonds - who is Teslian Head of Insurance, Elon’s new Underboss. “It’s all there; cameras in and all around your car; all of the data points are there.”
Elon knows all. He just hasn’t been able to monetize it, yet.
Wait.
"It really comes down to case law and how much of the data we can utilize," says Underboss Edmonds. Italicized to emphasize the fact that the data acquisition is an already established fact - regardless of "case law."
So it's a simple legal matter of getting the laws changed. How difficult will this be, do you suppose?
If it saves even one life . . .
Recently, Tesla owners have been discovering that their cars aren’t just plugged in to wall sockets; they are also plugged in to Elon. The cars are like two-way radios that are always on, with Elon sending “updates”- including “updates” that arbitrarily alter the range of the car, without the “owner’s” consent or even knowledge . . until he looks at the dashboard and discovers that his car now only goes 180 miles on a full charge - maybe - rather than 220 (also maybe) the day before.
Elon could - and has - reduced the range of the cars under his control to zero. So far, temporarily - while an “app” updated. But the point should be taken. Elon has the power to prevent any Tesla owner from driving at all.
For any reason.
Think about this a bit.
What if you offend Elon? Or the Big Tech Panopticon? Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind that the same electronic oligarchs - and Elon's one of them - who summarily "de-platform" and "de-monetize" people whose views transgress the orthodoxies of our era will refrain from using the same power to de-wheel people?
Depressingly, it's not just Teslas.
They are currently the most "connected" cars on the road but not the only "connected" cars on the road. Every new car has some degree of connected tech baked into it.
What do you suppose all the 5G Connectedness being hurriedly erected and Internet of Things is all about?
And it's not just Elon. All the insurance "families" are wanting the same thing Elon wants. Right now, you can still still opt out of being monitored - and dunned as you drive.
How long do you suppose this will last?
Resistance will be futile. Or at least, driving will be. Any driving you might want to do yourself, that is.
Elon claims that real-time data streaming about people’s driving will result in “safe drivers” getting a break on insurance costs. Which they may - at the cost of Universal Cloverism, complete obedience to every traffic law, no matter how absurd.
If it’s illegal, it’s chargeable. In the monetary rather than electric sense.
All cars will drive at the same "safe" - read, slow - pace. Creeping along in formation. The least common denominator will be the measure and applied equally, to all.
For a teeth-aching preview of what it will be like, the next time you go for a drive obey every traffic law to the letter. Accelerate - and brake - "gently." Pass no one - unless you can manage it without exceeding whatever the posted speed limit is. Stop fully - and wait a three second count - at every stop sign before proceeding, regardless of the absence of other cars in the vicinity.
This will of course encourage people to simply give up driving - and let the Autopilot (programmed by Clovers) take over.
Which is exactly what the long-term goal is: To end driving altogether by making it either an insufferable bore or impossibly expensive, by dunning every instance of "unsafe" (non-Clover) driving.
The pieces are all coming together.
It's a shame people can't see it. Or maybe it's worse. They do see it - and just don't care anymore.
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!
]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20787-You-re-in-Good-Hands-With-ElonWinter and EVshttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20786-Winter-and-EVs&goto=newpost
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:37:41 GMTWinter - and cold weather - is just a few months away and that means more than just cold and probably snow.
It also means power outages.
Sometimes,...Winter - and cold weather - is just a few months away and that means more than just cold and probably snow.
It also means power outages.
Sometimes, these last for several days. Last year, for example, an ice storm in my area took down many trees and with them several power lines. The juice was off for almost a week.
How does one recharge an electric car in this scenario?
The answer, of course, is that one doesn't. Not unless one has a whole-house back-up generator that produces the 200 amp service necessary to power the "fast" charger. Most people don't have that kind of back-up power, because it's expensive. The typical install is about $5,000 for the generator and supply/hook-up to natural gas, propane or diesel (which will produce "emissions" while charging up the "zero emissions" EV).
Fold this cost into the cost of your EV.
A smaller, more affordable portable generator - the kind most people who have to deal with power outages usually do have - costs less (about $600 for a 5,000 watt unit that will run a few 120v circuits and so keep the lights on and the fridge working) but doesn't produce enough power to run an EV "fast" charger. If you need a charge, it'll be slow.
Hours.
This could be inconvenient if you need to get someplace now. Or even soon.
Maybe tomorrow?
Just another example of the pending problems people will be experiencing once EVs are shucked-and-jived (and subsidized) into their garages.
Contrast this scenario of hassle and expense with the minor inconvenience of a power outage when your car is liquid-powered. Unless the tank is empty, you can go right now - no waiting, no hooking up to a gennie. And if it's empty, all you need is a jug. Most gas stations have their own back-up power and the pumps will be on. Go get a gallon and you're good to go.
It's not just ice storms, either. There is a hurricane - the androgynous Dorian - bearing down on the east coast of the U.S. If it is strong enough and bad enough when it hits, the power will likely go off in many places. People will be wanting to flee those places, too - because in addition to the power going off, the water may be coming in. That means lots of people on the road all at once. Running out of power before you can get out of dodge is another problem EV People will be dealing with.
Which brings up a seemingly reasonable question:
Why bother?
Why accept all these hassles and expenses?
Isn't it astonishing how eager people are to exchange something that works better (and for cheaper) for something that doesn't and isn't?
And they ask my why I drink . . .
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!If you like what you've found here please consider supporting EPautos. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Our donate button is here. If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker - and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price - free! Click here.

]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20786-Winter-and-EVsCrushed Every Four Yearshttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20784-Crushed-Every-Four-Years&goto=newpost
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:22:14 GMTIf you’ve been wondering what's behind the electric car/automated car push, Ford’s John Rich just let the cat out of the sack:
“We will exhaust and crush a car every four years in this business.”
That business being the automated/electric car business.
Rich should know, since he’s the head of Ford’s Autonomous Vehicles Operations. He really means automated, of course - since the very last thing the cars he's talking about are is autonomous.
Look it up for yourself.
Autonomous means independent from external control.
Nothing could be less autonomous than a car entirely under the control of the governmental-industrial combine which lays downs the operating parameters (via the programming) of the car, over which you have no control whatsoever. How do you control a car without a steering wheel, brake or accelerator pedal?
A car you don’t even own?
Instead, a ride you share.
And it isn't even that - because sharing implies freely letting someone else borrow or use whatever it is, whereas what Rich and the rest of the car industry have in mind is perpetual renting. Serial payments, deducted automatically on an a la carte basis or via a “subscription.”
You own nothing - and that which you do not own, you do not control. Orwellian doublespeak conveys the opposite of this inarguable fact.
The only thing under your control about an automated/ride-shared electric car is whether to get in the thing - and when to get out - and even that can be suborned externally if they decide you don't deserve a ride (extrapolate from OnStar’s well-known ability to unlock a car remotely, via over-the-airwaves signaling).
Forget about spur-of-the-moment drives to wherever you like, whenever you like, as long as you like and how you like . . . and without anyone else even knowing about it.
People are babes in the woods about what's coming. Some of it is already here. Has been here, for years. And they haven't even noticed.
It takes time to build a hog pen.
ABS; traction/stability control - which you don't control. In many cars, you can't turn it off, either. The question isn't why you might want to but why aren't you allowed to. It's still technically your car. And yet, it's increasingly not under your control. The car industry has been clawing back control, piece-by-piece, in order to get people used to a new kind of car.
And to get them used to no longer driving it - which they barely do anymore.
The sun is setting, fast...
Things like ABS and traction/stability control - which became common back in the '90s - weren't too intrusive. At least not to the sensibilities of the average A to B driver. But people who drove noticed - and despised - the intrusion. The pre-emption. They loathed the principle these intrusions established.
The can't-say-no-to-it taking away of control over their car.
There are perfectly sound reasons for wanting to be able to lock up the tires and put the car into a controlled skid. A skilled driver will know all about this. Contrariwise, there was skill in knowing how to avoid locking up the tires and how to steer out of a skid. It used to be taught. It was once expected as a minimal competence.
All snatched away - supposedly for saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety but actually for control.
Cars used to be 100 percent under our control.
No interference with brake/throttle/steering. The radio didn't peremptorily mute when you put the shifter into reverse. The computer didn't put the transmission into neutral if you tried to back the car up with the door open. All part of the package now.
Soon, they'll be under their control entirely - the principle having been established decades ago via the acceptance of can't-say-no-to-them ABS, traction/stability control and all the rest of the creeping electronic kudzu.
If these things keep use saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafe just imagine how much saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafer we'll soon be.
Note how pushy it's gotten over just the past three or four years. Driver "assists" - Lane Keep, Brake and Speed Limit - increasingly unavoidable in new cars and soon impossible to avoid. Speed Limit "Assist" having been mandated already. It all congeals. In order to "assist" you from "speeding," control over throttle will be wrested.
It already has been wrested, in case you didn't know.
A computer (and the coder who wrote the software) controls the throttle in pretty much every car made since circa 2005 or so. You are allowed the fiction of control, for now - so you won't get restive while the pen is built around you.
Brakes are under the car's control, too - which means under the control of those who programmed it. Not you. If the car decides it's time to brake, it will. It can just as easily be programmed to stop - or to not move in the first place.
Once the "assists" are ubiquitous and can't be turned off and every car is wired in to the "Internet of Things" via the 5G network they're building around us at this very moment, it'll be time for us to hand over the keys but keep on paying.
The era of the automated electric car will have arrived.
They'll be short-lived cars, too.
Ride-shared/automated electric cars will be in service almost continuously, wearing out much sooner - but collecting far more in ride-shared debits/subscriptions than single monthly car payments.
That is where the money is, you see - which is the happy flip side of control.
The car industry is tired of the petty 3-5 percent margins on the sale of individual cars to individual people. And of cars that last much too long.
A paid-off car is a bad car.
By renting a single car to many people, you make a lot more money. And not just by selling transportation but by crushing it. Instead of once every 15-plus years - which is usually how long an individually sold/individually driven car lasts - every four years, as Rich says.
Of course, someone's going to have to pay for all that newness.
Guess who?
The price of crushing automated electric cars every four years will be folded into the cost of your ride-share. Which will also cost you control over your mobility - that term having passed into the Lexicon of doublespeak along with "autonomous" and "assist." All of their former happy meanings palimpsested into uglified new ones, while retaining the superficial emotional appeal of their original meanings.
Like "freedom."
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!
]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20784-Crushed-Every-Four-YearsThe Offloadinghttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20782-The-Offloading&goto=newpost
Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:55:59 GMTWhen the car industry begs to be regulated (https://www.foxnews.com/auto/4-automakers-cut-deal-with-california-on-fuel-efficiency-regulations), you...When the car industry begs to be regulated, you have to wonder about the regulations. And the motivations.
Is it a case of being crazy . . . or crazy like a fox?
The car industry - well, about a third of it so far (Ford, Honda, BMW, VW and Mercedes) wants to be forced to make cars that average close to 50 miles-per-gallon by 2025, as fatwa’d about four years ago by the federal regulatory apparat.
The current head of the federal government - President Trump - is trying to rescind the fatwa or at least dial it back to something more technically and economically feasible. But the car companies have stated that even if Trump dials back the federal fatwa, they will impose it upon themselves by embracing a mirrored fatwa issued by the state of California. Which will then become a de facto national fatwa.
But saving gas is like losing weight. It sounds great - but it’s not easy.
Or inexpensive.
Nor demanded by the market - but that's another thing.
As Trump pointed out the other day, the cost of the technology - the physical hardware as well as physical changes to the way cars are designed - that will be necessary to get cars to average nearly 50 MPG (as specified by the fatwa) in just five years' time will cost thousands of dollars per car. Trump says about $3,000 per car - which is very close to the mark because the only current cars that average 50 MPG and so fatwa-compliant are hybrids - models like the Toyota Prius and Kia Niro.
These hybrids cost about $3k more than an otherwise similar non-hybrid. This is what the government wants you to spend to save gas. Or rather, it’s what Trump doesn’t want you to have to spend. But the car industry - VW, Ford, Honda, BMW and Benz, anyhow - wants you to spend.
Wants you to have to spend.
You will pay them more money rather than ExxonMobil.
And you’ll pay more than just $3k.
Trump failed to explain that if the fatwa stands, it will take more than a few hybrids to get to 50-something MPG. It will take a lot of electric cars. These use no gas, of course - and so they are a boon to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (the fatwa’s formal name) math. Each EV sold makes it feasible to sell non-EVs that aren’t hybrids and don’t - and can’t - achieve 50 MPG.
Trucks, for instance.
One 28 MPG truck plus one infinite MPG EV divided by two (this is crude, but it helps explain the math) equals . . . closer to 50 MPG and fatwa compliance. The more EVs in the mix, the better the CAFE compliance math.
But there’s a fly in the soup.
Someone will have to buy all those EVs. And EVs cost many thousands more than hybrids Who's gonna pony up - and how?
We hear talk about “breakthroughs” that will reduce the cost of EVs, but the fact is that you can’t buy any currently available EV for less than $30,000 (the entry-level version of the Nissan Leaf with a smaller battery and just 150 miles of range) which is $6,230 more than the price of the 2019 Prius ($23,770) or twice the compliance cost estimated by Trump. It is also more than twice the price of a current non-electric economy car - which is actually economical. It might not get 50 MPG - but you don't have to spend $23k on it.
And that figure doesn’t include the $1,000 or so you’d have to spend to have your house wired up for the “fast” charger the EV would need.
So, absent the “breakthrough” we keep hearing about (and have been hearing about, for literally decades but which has yet to materialize and may never materialize) people will either pay a great deal more for EVs - or they will pay a great deal more for non-EVs, which will become more expensive to buy in order to absorb the cost of building all those unsold (or given away at a loss) EVs.
It sounds stupid - and it is.
But the car companies aren’t run by imbeciles. Virtue signalers, certainly. But not idiots.
There is another reason for their embrace of the 50 MPG fatwa that goes beyond green - the lust for mandated profits in the name of "saving" on gas.
It is, simply, the offloading of their regulatory burdens.
Electric vehicles are categorized by the regulatory apparat as “zero emissions” vehicles - which means zero compliance costs . . . for the car companies. No more having to sweat passing federal emissions certification tests - which don't apply at all to electric cars.
It’s no accident VW - which was almost destroyed by the scandal over "cheating" on those tests - is among the Five who are demanding to be regulated . . . in order to be exempted.
Emissions compliance costs won't go away; remember that the main gripe leveled at today's non-electric cars is that they "emit" carbon dioxide. Well, so do electric cars - just indirectly.
The companies which make EVs won't have to worry about tailpipe emissions regulations and compliance costs. But utilities - the power companies - will.
They'll be regulated all the more - and those costs will be offloaded onto the backs of their customers, in the form of higher electricity costs.
But the car companies will avoid those costs.
No more worries about CAFE compliance costs, either - since electric cars use no gas at all.
It makes sense once you understand it. The car companies are demanding to be regulated in order to be freed from being regulated.
But it won't be free.
We'll be paying a great deal more for cars, soon. And even if you don't buy a new car, you'll be paying more for electricity - to cover the cost of all those shifted compliance costs.
The Orange Man is trying. But he hasn't done the best job explaining.
Maybe this will help.
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!If you like what you've found here please consider supporting EPautos. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Our donate button is here. If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker - and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price - free! Click here.

]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20782-The-OffloadingThe Thousand Dollar Windshieldhttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20781-The-Thousand-Dollar-Windshield&goto=newpost
Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:31:23 GMTMost people don’t know this - yet - but replacing a new car’s windshield can cost as much as a new transmission used to cost.
Sometimes, more....Most people don’t know this - yet - but replacing a new car’s windshield can cost as much as a new transmission used to cost.
Sometimes, more.
Because it’s not just glass you’re replacing.
Embedded in the glass - part of the “assembly” - is saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety technology. It’s usually part of the rearview mirror, technically - but that’s now part of the windshield assembly in more and more new cars.
It’s no longer the simple - and generic/universal - glue it in place rearview mirror cars used to have.
The rearview mirror is almost an afterthought.
The rest of the assembly - that huge chunk of plastic that's glued to the glass - contains sensors and cameras, integral to saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety systems such as Lane Keep Assist, Automated Emergency Braking and so on. Some keep track of what’s happening outside the car and some (like Subaru’s EyeSight system) also keep track of what’s going on inside the car.
Some do both.
In some cars, the rearview mirror doubles as a closed-circuit camera.
But the relevant thing is that the windshield in a modern car is no longer just a sheet of glass but an integrated system with proprietary technology baked into it.
This makes the system much more expensive to manufacture than the old-school sheet of just glass - and effectively impossible for generic/aftermarket companies to make copies of.
They could make the glass, of course. But they can’t make the tech. Not legally, anyhow - and even if that weren’t an issue, the economics would be. The tech has become so car-specific that mass reproduction of a given part (this goes beyond windshields) often doesn't make economic sense.
In the past one size did fit all - or at least, many - when it came to automotive glass as well as many other parts. It was typical for a given make/model of car to remain pretty much the same for at least five or six years and that meant a given sheet of glass (as well as other parts) fit tens of thousands of copies of a given make/model of car built over that span of years.
This reduced the cost of those parts because the manufacturer - whether original equipment or aftermarket - could recoup manufacturing costs on less per sale because more parts could be sold. Economies of scale.
You could also find a part that fit used - at a junkyard. So long as it physically bolted up, you were good to go. Usually for much less than the cost of a new part, whether OEM or aftermarket.
But today's car have much shorter shelf lives; the usual interval between a major makeover is down to about three or four years on average and it is now common for major incremental changes to be made year-to-year.
And cars are much more make/model and year-specific now. Trim and combination of options-specific, too.
Things no longer interchange as easily.
Your 2018 car may look like the 2016 version - but your version came with a different windshield. One that incorporates saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety tech or other systems that weren't yet on the menu back in ’16.
The windshield for a 2016 (or from one, at the junkyard) might physically fit. But it won't work - because the electronics are different.
The replacement windshield for the 2016 costs say $200; $150 for the functionally identical aftermarket/generic replacement. But the same glass for the 2018 costs twice as much - because it’s no longer just the glass . . .and because there is no generic/aftermarket option.
That stone chip just got a lot more expensive.
Your insurance, too. Both the premium and the deductible. People are beginning to notice - especially after they file that first claim for a replacement windshield. They are fall-to-their-knees grateful when they find out that's only going to cost them $100 (for the deductible) to get that $1,000 windshield.
A month later, they get the new bill - the “adjusted” premium (and deductible) which - in defense of the insurance mafia - reflects a legitimate cost.
What’s not legitimate is that we can’t opt out - of either.
We’re not allowed to buy new cars without the embedded-in-the-glass (and everywhere else) saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety tech, which has either been formally mandated by the government or functionally mandated by the car companies, most of which won’t sell you a car with just a windshield and just a rearview mirror anymore.
Just as they won't generally sell you a car without at least six air bags - even though the government only mandates two.
They’ll say it’s for your saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety, of course. But it doesn’t hurt - them - that it all this saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety ups the price you’re effectively forced to pay for the car and to fix the car.</p>
Which you’re forced to do because a cracked windshield won’t pass saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety inspection and without the saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety sticker on the windshield you’re fair game for a Hut! Hut! Hutting! by armed government workers.
And to insure it - which you are legally forced to do.
What was it George Jetson used to say?Jane! Stop this crazy thing!
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!If you like what you've found here please consider supporting EPautos. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Our donate button is here. If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker - and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price - free! Click here.

]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20781-The-Thousand-Dollar-WindshieldRWD Resurgencehttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20780-RWD-Resurgence&goto=newpost
Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:46:21 GMTTwo things once defined American cars.
They were almost always rear-wheel-drive - even the economy cars - and they usually could be had with V8...Two things once defined American cars.
They were almost always rear-wheel-drive - even the economy cars - and they usually could be had with V8 engines. Or at least, they fit. You could slide one into a Vega or Pinto . . . even a Chevette.
Many did.
The economy car could become a high-performance car after a weekend’s knuckle-banging. One capable of outperforming high-end European cars. Which were defined by one other thing:
Their (usually) impossibly high prices. Not many Americans could afford an E-Type Jag, Mercedes SL or a Ferrari Daytona. But many could afford a Camaro. Almost anyone could afford a Nova.
And either - plus many others - could give an E-Type or Daytona a run for the money . . . for a lot less money.
And then it all went away. Or at least, mostly. Vengeful oil cartels made gas impossibly expensive . Government termagants (of both sexes) made gas mileage expensive via heavy fines for cars that didn’t deliver it. This changed the landscape almost overnight - and seemingly forever. Those who lived through it will remember - and shudder.
American cars became like Japanese economy cars.
Rear drive and V8s gave way to front-drive and small fours - maybe a small six, if you paid extra. A big V8 wasn’t offered and wouldn’t fit anyway - not without serious welding - because the engine bay was meant for a tiny and sideways-mounted engine. A V8 engine was much too long. Even if you managed to knuckle-bust one in there, there was no room left for the transmission - which in a front-drive car is likewise mounted sideways (it’s called “transversely”) and combined with the drive axles, packaged together into something called a transaxle.
Not, as Seinfeld likes to say, that there’s anything wrong with that.
The FWD layout takes up less space overall - leaving more space inside the car for passengers. It is cheaper to manufacture - and it gets the weight of the drivetrain over the driven wheels, which aids traction. Pulling the car rather than pushing it helps on that score as well. It’s the reason why Citroen called its first front-drive car, the 1934 Traction Avant, just that.
The name means traction forward.
But FWD is also the broccoli of car design. It may be good for you - and good in snow - but a ribeye is better for you.
And rear-drive is the ribeye you’ve been craving.
It’s the right way to burn rubber, obviously. A FWD burnout is always clumsy because the wheels you’re trying to steer the car with are skittering and bouncing all over the road as they try to put the power to the road. There’s also a limit to how much power the wheels that steer the car can take before they fly off the car. It is why there have been very few truly powerful FWD cars. To keep things from breaking, the power must be limited or dialed back electronically or some of it shunted to the rear wheels through an all-wheel-drive system.
But now you can’t do a burnout at all.
And you still have most of the weight of the drivetrain over the front wheels, regardless - which messes up the car's balance. FWD is nose heavy, tail-light; cars of this type are prone to understeer, which is to driving fun what broccoli is to dinner.
It is also why almost all race cars and serious high-performance cars are based on a rear-drive layout. You can steer with the rear wheels - using the accelerator. Countersteering with the front wheels - via the steering wheel.
It’s what car people crave.
And it’s making a comeback.
American cars - and SUVs, even - are returning to the rear-drive layout. The Ford Explorer is one such that was rear-drive in its heyday, transitioned to a FWD layout but is now - at last - rear-drive again.
Ford plans to expand on this, too.
There is a hopeful rumor that Lincoln - Ford's luxury division - is going to go back to the RWD layout.
Chrysler's cars (and their Dodge-badged cousins) are all rear-drive, which probably accounts for their popularity, despite aging designs. The Chrysler 300 and Charger sedans are built like they used to make 'em - and now you can can get 'em again.
Rear drive also thrives among American trucks - which remain the most popular and profitable vehicles on the road. In fact, the only reason there still is an American car industry is because of big trucks. They subsidize the FWD (and electric car) loss leaders - which are manufactured mainly to keep the government termagants off the car industry's back.
None of these trucks has ever been front-wheel-drive. All of them have always offered V8s. Some of these trucks are quicker than the European exotics of not-so-long ago. The 2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 pick-up has the heart of a Corvette: 6.2 liters and 420 horsepower. It gets to 60 in about 5 seconds - enough to scare a Lamborghini Countach back to Bolognese.
Speaking of Corvette.
The new mid-engined one that just made its debut casts a heavy shadow. Its pushrod, two-valve V8 - which still drives the rear wheels - makes 490 horsepower in standard trim (more is available) for a base price of $58,900 - which is just a bit more than half the price of a new Porsche 911 with a 443 hp six with four valves, overhead cams plus turbos.
There are also the survivors, like Ford's Mustang - which made it intact through the '80s and '90s. Its survival encouraged the revival of Camaro - which had been down for the count - and the Dodge Challenger, now available in Redeye form with almost 800 supercharged horsepower - all of them searing the asphalt via the rear wheels, as the Motor Gods intended.
And for a relatively accessible $72,745.
The good times are back.
The worry is whether they'll last.
]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20780-RWD-ResurgenceThe RWD Resurgencehttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20779-The-RWD-Resurgence&goto=newpost
Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:31:21 GMTTwo things once defined American cars.
They were almost always rear-wheel-drive - even the economy cars - and they usually could be had with V8...Two things once defined American cars.
They were almost always rear-wheel-drive - even the economy cars - and they usually could be had with V8 engines. Or at least, they fit. You could slide one into a Vega or Pinto . . . even a Chevette.
Many did.
The economy car become a high-performance car after a weekend’s knuckle-banging. One capable of outperforming high-end European cars. Which were defined by one other thing:
Their (usually) impossibly high prices. Not many Americans could afford an E-Type Jag, Mercedes SL or a Ferrari Daytona. But many could afford a Camaro. Almost anyone could afford a Nova.
And either - plus many others - could give an E-Type or Daytona a run for the money . . . for a lot less money.
And then it all went away. Or at least, mostly. Vengeful oil cartels made gas impossibly expensive and government termagants (of both sexes) made gas mileage expensive via heavy fines for cars that didn’t deliver it. This changed the landscape almost overnight - and seemingly forever. Those who lived through it will remember - and shudder.
American cars became like Japanese economy cars.
Rear drive and V8s gave way to front-drive and small fours - maybe a small six, if you paid extra. A big V8 wasn’t offered and wouldn’t fit anyway - not without serious welding - because the engine bay was meant for a tiny and sideways-mounted engine. A V8 engine was much too long. Even if you managed to knuckle-bust one in there, there was no room left for the transmission - which in a front-drive car is likewise mounted sideways (it’s called “transversely”) and combined with the rear axle, packaged together into something called a transaxle.
Not, as Seinfeld likes to say, that there’s anything wrong with that. The FWD layout takes up less space overall - leaving more space inside the car for passengers. It is cheaper to manufacture - and it gets the weight of the drivetrain over the driven wheels, which aids traction. Pulling the car rather than pushing it helps on that score as well. It’s the reason why Citroen called its first front-drive car, the 1934 Traction Avant, just that.
The name means traction forward.
But FWD is also the broccoli of car design. It may be good for you - and good in snow - but a ribeye is better for you.
And rear-drive is the ribeye you’ve been craving.
It’s the right way to burn rubber, obviously. A FWD burnout is always clumsy because the wheels you’re trying to steer the car with are skittering and bouncing all over the road as they try to put the power to the road. There’s also a limit to how much power the wheels that steer the car can take before they fly off the car. It is why there are very few truly powerful FWD cars. To keep things from breaking, the power must be dialed back electronically or shunted to the rear wheels through an all-wheel-drive system.
But now you can’t do a burnout at all.
You still have most of the weight of the drivetrain over the front wheels, too - which messes up the car's balance and so its handling. FWD is nose heavy, tail-light and prone to understeer. This is why almost all race cars and serious high-performance cars are based on a rear-drive layout. You can steer with the rear wheels - using the accelerator. Countersteering with the front wheels - via the steering wheel.
It’s what car people crave.
And it’s making a comeback.
American cars - and SUVs, even - are returning to the rear-drive layout. The Ford Explorer is one such that was rear-drive in its heyday, transitioned to a FWD layout but is now - at last - rear-drive again.
Ford plans to expand on this, too.
Rear drive also thrives among American trucks - which remain the most popular and profitable vehicles on the road. In fact, the only reason there still is an American car industry is because of big trucks. They subsidize the FWD loss leaders - which are manufactured mainly to keep the government termagants off the car industry's back.
None of these trucks has ever been front-wheel-drive. All of them have always offered V8s. Some of these trucks are quicker than the European exotics of not-so-long ago. A 2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 pick-up has the heart of a Corvette - 6.2 liters and 420 horsepower. It gets to 60 in about 5 seconds - enough to scare a Lamborghini Countach back to Bolognese.
Speaking of Corvette.
The new mid-engined one that just made its debut casts a heavy shadow. It embarrasses today's European exotics. Its pushrod, two-valve V8 - which still drives the rear wheels - makes 490 horsepower in standard trim (more is available) for a base price of $58,900 - which is just a bit more than half the price of a new Porsche 911 with a 443 hp six with four valves, overhead cams plus turbos.
There are also the survivors, like Ford's Mustang - which made it intact through the '80s and '90s. Its survival encouraged the revival of Camaro - which had been down for the count - and the Dodge Charger, now available in Redeye form with almost 800 supercharged horsepower - all of them searing the asphalt via the rear wheels, as the Motor Gods intended.
And for a relatively accessible $72,745.
The good times are back.
The worry is whether they'll last.
]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20779-The-RWD-ResurgenceThe Consequences of the Intendedhttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20778-The-Consequences-of-the-Intended&goto=newpost
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 12:49:38 GMTKids didn’t used to roast to death, forgotten in the back seat of cars, because it was hard to forget your kid when he was sitting right there beside...Kids didn’t used to roast to death, forgotten in the back seat of cars, because it was hard to forget your kid when he was sitting right there beside you - or even sitting in your lap. That was outlawed - for saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety.
And now kids are forgotten about in the back seat and left to roast to death.
Solution? Keep them strapped in back there even longer. Some states have mandated that “kids” ride in saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety seats until they’re practically ready for Social Security - or at least, college.
A few people backed up over kids - chiefly because it is almost impossible to see what’s behind any car made since the early ‘90s, which is because cars made since then have been made with bulbous rear ends apparently modeled on Kim Kardashian in the interests of . . . . saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety.
They can take being bumped into better than the non-Kardashian models of the pre-saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety era.
But now you’re more likely to bump into - or run over - something.
Or someone.
Solution? Pass a law requiring that every new car be fitted with a closed circuit camera system - just like RVs have.
No thought is given to making cars less RV (or Kardashian) like.
People have lately been forgetting to turn off their car's engine - because in many cars built since the mid-2000s, you don't turn anything to turn off the engine. Instead you push a button to turn off the ignition.
Or thought you did.
Later, the engine comes back on - possibly turning you off (for good) if it happens when you're asleep and the car is in your garage. Physical keys were a failsafe. You had to turn the key in order to remove it from the ignition. Since most people tend to take their keys with them when they they leave the car, they turned off the engine before they left the car as a matter of course, without any special double-checking needed.
Mandating a return to keys rather than buttons would seem sensible (if we're going into the mandating business, it ought at least to be sensible). Instead, it looks like a new mandate is coming for buzzers - or warnings piped to the owner's cell phone.
Because that's so much more sensible than a key.
The government says new cars use too much gas and passes laws requiring the car companies to figure out ways to burn less. One way is to direct-inject the fuel into each cylinder rather than mist it in from above. This saves a little gas. It also carbon fouls the intake valves, which causes the engine to burn oil as well as gas eventually.
Solution? Add another fuel delivery circuit. It uses more gas. Using more parts. But you’ve solved the carbon fouling problem.
Speaking of gas mileage.
You get more if you burn gas - but the government decrees we must burn alcohol along with it. Which results in the burning of more gas to go the same miles - or at least, more gas-alcohol cocktail.
If we went back to burning gas without alcohol, gas mileage would go up about 3 percent across the board. What does this say about the government's interest in MPGs?
It says the government is interested in other things.
Electric cars are not necessarily a bad idea. For the city. For short trips. Small and light; emphasis on low-cost and high-efficiency - not Ludicrous Speed.
But because the government thinks it's a good idea to transfer the source of carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipe to smokestack - apparently, this will reduce PPM levels and save the Earth - electric cars have been square pegged and round holed.
The technology doesn't exist to make them functionally and economically competitive with non-electrics as anytime/anywhere cars. But never mind. Turtles can fly if the government says they can.
Now make it so.
American citizens are expected - required - to obey not only every traffic law to the letter but every law to the letter. Foreigners who enter the country illegally are referred to as "immigrants" by the same government which insists citizens obey every law, traffic and otherwise - and which punishes punish those who don't. These illegals are given driver's licenses - and not made to produce them in order to vote.
But we'll get a ticket for not "buckling up."
People are terrible drivers. Chiefly because they’re not expected to be good or even awake ones. They pay more attention to their cell phones than the road - or car - ahead of them. To encourage more of this, the car industry fits cars with Automated Emergency Braking and Lane Keep Assist, which pay attention to the road - and the car ahead - on behalf of the driver.
The end goal seems to be to eliminate the driver altogether.
Or at least to bore him to death.
. . .Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics - or anything else? Click on the "ask Eric" link and send 'em in!
]]>Motor MouthErichttps://ericpetersautos.com/forum/showthread.php?20778-The-Consequences-of-the-Intended